Dilip Kumar B.H. vs State Of Karnataka & Ors.

M G Uma, J

The appellant - accused No.2 is before this Court seeking grant of bail under Section 14-A (2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the SC/ST Act’ for short) in Crime No.139/2025 of Thalaghattapura Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 137(2), 127(2), 109, 133, 310 (2), 111(2) R/w Section 190 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short BNS), Section 7 R/w 27 of the Indian Arms Act, 1959 and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act on the basis of the first information lodged by informant-Kiran.S.

Heard Sri. Madhu E.K., learned Counsel for the appellant and Smt.Rashmi Jadhav, learned Additional SPP for the respondent No.1-State. Perused the materials on record.

In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:

“Whether the appellants are entitled for grant of bail under Section 14-A(2) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989?”

My answer to the above point is in ‘Affirmative’ for the following:

REASONS

The appellant being accused No.2 is said to have committed the offence punishable under Sections 137(2), 127(2), 109, 133, 310 (2), 111(2) R/w Section 190 of BNS, Section 7 R/w 27 of the Indian Arms Act and Section 3(2)(v) of 'the SC/ST Act'. The informant filed the first information making specific allegations against accused Nos.1 and 2 and others. It is stated that the present appellant had called the victim to the spot and assaulted him on his legs. The accused have withdrawn an amount of Rs.26,000/- from the account of the complainant. It is stated that there was no recovery at the instance of the present appellant. The informant states in the first information that he had not taken any treatment.

The appellant was apprehended on 16.04.2025 and since then he is in judicial custody. It is not the contention of the prosecution that the appellant is required for further investigation.

Learned ASPP submits that the appellant is having criminal antecedent, as he has involved in Cr.No.86/2022 of Cubbon Park police station. The same is admitted by the learned counsel for the appellant. However, he states that he has been falsely implicated in the present case, and that the appellant undertakes not to involve in any other criminal cases. Taking into consideration, such submissions, I am of the opinion that the appellant who is not required to be detained in custody for any purpose may be enlarged on bail subject to conditions, which will take care of the interest of the prosecution as well as interest of the complainant and the witnesses.

Accordingly, I answer the above point in the affirmative and proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

The appeal is allowed.

The appellant/accused No.2 is ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.139/2025 of Thalagattapura Police Station, on obtaining the bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court, subject to the following conditions:

a). The appellant shall not commit similar offences.

b). The appellant shall not threaten or tamper with the prosecution witnesses.

c). The appellant shall appear before the Court as and when required.

If in case, the appellant violates any of the conditions as stated above, the prosecution will be at liberty to move the Trial Court seeking cancellation of bail.

On furnishing the sureties by the appellant, the Trial Court is at liberty to direct the Investigating Officer to verify the correctness of the address and authenticity of the documents furnished by the appellant and the sureties and a report may be called for in that regard, which is to be submitted by the Investigating Officer within 5 days. The Trial Court on satisfaction, may proceed to accept the sureties for the purpose of releasing the appellant on bail.